The Implementation of Well-Known Trademarks Doctrine in Indonesian Commercial and Supreme Court
The implementation of well-known trademark in indonesia is still unsatisfying especially for foreign trademarks since many foreign trademarks that claimed themselves as well-known trademarks were not admitted for the trademarks were not yet registered or based on judges assessment, not fulfilling the criteria. This research aim is to analyse the implementation of well-known trademarks doctrine in Indonesian commercial and supreme court. The method used is normative-juridical with statute and case study approach. The result shows that the commercial and supreme court have used the criteria of well-known trademarks as stipulated in Law no. 20 Year 2016 and Permenkumham no. 67 Year 2016 as well as WIPO Joint Recommendation in identifying a well-known trademark. However, the implementation is inconsistent. it is inconsistent because in one case (STARCO case), court prior to the first to file principle while in other case (Alexander Mcqueen case), court admit the trademark as a well-known trademark though it is not registered yet. The second case is coherence with the well-known trademark doctrine which the idea to protect a high reputed trademark even it is not registered. Secondly, the emptiness of the detailed criteria has made the judgement on well-known trademarks becomes widely opened for interpretation. Thus, the next convention and regulation must set aside the first to file principle and prior to the criteria only in identifying a well-known trademark. Moreover, the criteria of minimum number of registration or application should be revised by requiring the trademark to be registered or applied in at least 6 out of 10 countries with the biggest population in the world so that it is proven that the trademark is exist among the most world population. In addition, the standard level of legal enforcement must entail minimum two verdicts so that the enforcement has obtained a re-confirmation.
Keywords:Implementation, Well-Known Trademarks, Supreme Court, Commercial
Bairagi, Ashutosh. “Trademark and the Problem of Its Infringement in The Case of Deceptive Similarity”, in International Journal of Scientific Research 5, no. 3, 2016: 315-316.
Bania, Doug. “Can Trademark Infringement Be a Victimless Crime? The Stone v. Omnia Case”. International Journal of Law and Public Administration 1, no. 2, 2018: 41-46, DOI: 10.11114/ijlpa.v1i2.3879.
Bird, Robert C., Steckel, Joel H. “The Role of Consumer Surveys in Trademark Infringement: Empirical Evidence from the Federal Courts”. J. BUS. L. 14, no. 4, 2012: 1013-1053.
Cela, Miresi. “The Importance of Trademarks and A Review of Empirical Studies”. 4, no. 3, 2015: 125-134, DOI: 10.14207/ejsd.2015.v4n3p125.
Chirani, Ebrahim., Teleghani, Mohammad., Moghadam, Nasim Esmailie. “Brand Performanca and Brand Equity”, Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research Business 3, no. 9, 2012: 1033-1036.
Choudhary, Vivek Kumar. “Protection of Well Known Trademarks and Weakening of Honest Concurrent User Defense”, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 15, no. 4, 2010: 300-310.
Greenhalgh, Christine and Elizabeth Webster. “Have Trademarks Become Deceptive?”, The WIPO Journal 6, no. 2, 2013: 1-8.
Grinvald, Leah Chan. “The Tale of Two Theories of Well-Known Marks”. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 13, no. 1 (2010): 18-26.
Irawan., Bustani, “Analisis Pembatalan Merek Superman yang Memiliki Persamaan Pada Keseluruhnya Menurut UU Nomor 20 Tahun 2016 (Studi Putusan Nomor 1105K/PDT.SUS-HKI/2018)”, Jurnal Hukum Adigama 3, no. 1, 2020): 841-865, DOI: 10.24912/adigama.v3i1.8929.
Jeon, Joo-Eon. “The Impact of Brand Concept on Brand Equity”, Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 11, no. 2, 2017: 233-245, DOI: 10.1108/APJIE-08-2017-030.
Khan, Tahsan Rahman. “Family Businesses That Produce Counterfeits: What is Stopping Them From Creating Their Own Brand?”, Procedia Economics and Finance 4, 2012: 304-311, DOI: 10.1016/s2212-5671(12)00345-0.
Law number 20 Year 2016 Concern on Trademarks and Geographical Indications.
Luo, Jing ‘Brad’., Ghosh, Subha. “Protection and Enforcement of Well-Known Mark Rights in China: History, Theory, and Future”, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property 7, no. 2, 2009: 119-161, DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1326398.
Malliaris, P. Stylianos. “Protecting Famous Trademarks: Comparative Analysis of US and EU Diverging Approaches- The Battle Between Legislatures and The Judiciary Who Is The Ultimate Judge?”, The Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property 9, no. 1, 2010: 45-59.
Nemlioglu, Ilayda Nemlioglu., Mallick, Sushanta K. “Do Innovation-Intensive Firms Mitigate Their Valuation Uncertainty During Bad Times?”. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization 177, 2020: 913-940, DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2020.06.004.
Setiawan, Andry, Dewi Sulistianingsih, and Ivan Bhakti Yudistira. “Non-Traditional Trademarkss in Indonesia: Protection under The Laws and Regulations (An Intellectual Property Law)”, Journal of Indonesian Legal Studies 2, no. 2, 2017: 123-130, DOI: 10.15294/jils.v2i02.19443.
Susliana, Irina and Polina Mineeva. “Use of Digital Technologies for Optimizing The Handling of Trademarkss Application”, Procedia Computer Science 169, 2020: 435-439, DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2020.02.242.
The Ministry of Law and Human Rights Regulation Number 67 Year 2016 Concern on Trademarks Registration.
Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) Agreement
Yen, Alfred C. “Intent and Trademarks Infringement”, Arizona Law Review 57, no. 3 (2015): 715-745.
This research is funded by the Directorate General of Higher Education of Republic of Indonesia (Dikti) through a Novice Lecturer Research Grant Scheme (2020 Conduction).
How to Cite
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.